Southern history and the truth

[The_Hammer]

You really are naive aren't you? No one is arguing that slavery played a part. If you really think that the North was fighting this noble cause to end slavery, you're wrong. It was not ok for the South to own slave, but it was ok for the North to abuse children by sticking them in industrial plants and working them to the core, while forcing immigrants right off the boat into military service??

Slavery was LEGAL until 1865. The North had legalized slavery the entire war, even after Lincolns emancipation proclamation. So there's your whole slavery issue.

The South seceded because they felt oppressed by the North, and that they had no representation in the government. Everything you've posted is an underlying factor of that...slavery being one of them.

As far as legality goes....the South was perfectly legal in seceding from the Union.

First, there is no law prohibiting secession in the Constitution.
Second, Amendment 10 grants all laws not prohibited to the states, to the states. And since secession is not prohibited, it is reserved to the states.

Oh, did I mention slavery was legal in the North and South, and that the UNion had several states that permitted slavery?

I didn't say that the north had made slavery illegal. I didn't say that they fought the war to free the slaves. I've never made that an argument. Read my posts, hell read the damn articles. The souths primary reason for secession was the fear of the eventual illegality of slavery. All the states rights issues were related to slavery. Texas has a bit about not getting protection from raiding indians and mexicans from the federal government but that's largely it. Pretty much everything comes down to northern states not respecting southern laws in regards to slavery and the federal government not doing it's part to enforce the laws of the south or the laws of the federal government to protect southerners right to property.

The south was represented. Their voting population was even OVER represented due to the 3/5ths rule. And even if all the slaves had counted, they still would have lost. They weren't "oppressed". They were playing a game (both parties are playing by the rules mind you), losing, and bitching about it.

 

[BrianH]

You are saying it's an implied right because it's not specifically stated. However Federal superiority to the states is established and further implied throughout the constitution.




Bound by oath, ie contract, to support the constitution. You can't reject it. You can't not recognize it. Not recognizing the authority of the constitution is not recognizing the authority of the federal government.

Secession is not in the constitution, nor was it law...therfore, secession was not illegal.



There is a difference in one nation not recognizing another nation and a subject territory suddenly not recognizing the government it's under. The establishment of Federal superiority comes with restrictions placed on the states regarding inter-state transactions and treaties, raising and army, doing anything that a country normally does.

There were no restrictions on secession.




I admit as I have before that is not a solid statement that states can not secede, however it is stronger than the argument that they can because the Federal government is sovereign in all the things that nations normally do, form treaties, have armies, etc.

secession was legal, once the state secedes legally, it is not bound by oath to follow the U.S. Constitution. Read the 10th Amendment. Part of the Bill of Rights. The 1oth Amendment of the Bill of Rights says that if it is not Prohibited in the Constitution, that the state can reserve that power resepctively. The Constitution does not prohibit secession.


They refused to recognize the authority of a nation that was sovereign to them. That's called rebellion.

The states make up the nation, not the other way around. There was no rebellion. The North invaded the South, not the other way around.


Congress was sovereign to the states. Anything that the states normally couldn't do they'd have to get congresses permission to do. Ergo, secession would need congressional approval.

Congress was an extremely northern Majority as well as the Supreme Court. Do you think Congress would have approved it? Imagine that?....



Please show me where the land upon which the fort sat, belonged to South Carolina.





See supremacy clause.

 

[BrianH]

I didn't say that the north had made slavery illegal. I didn't say that they fought the war to free the slaves. I've never made that an argument. Read my posts, hell read the damn articles. The souths primary reason for secession was the fear of the eventual illegality of slavery. All the states rights issues were related to slavery. Texas has a bit about not getting protection from raiding indians and mexicans from the federal government but that's largely it. Pretty much everything comes down to northern states not respecting southern laws in regards to slavery and the federal government not doing it's part to enforce the laws of the south or the laws of the federal government to protect southerners right to property.

You stated that well young one. You mentioned a little about slavery, and then followed it up with the main reason why the South seceded...they north did not respect them, they did not enforce laws in the South, etc...there were many other reasons why the South seceded, it was not strictly over slavery. Slavery was a factor that was tied into the whole mess. If the North was trying to outlaw Cowboy hats, there would have been a similar response.

The south was represented. Their voting population was even OVER represented due to the 3/5ths rule. And even if all the slaves had counted, they still would have lost. They weren't "oppressed". They were playing a game (both parties are playing by the rules mind you), losing, and bitching about it.

First, I hate to spill the beans on our election system, but popular representation means nothing. If that was the case, Al Gore would have been the president. They were opressed since the majority of the money in the nation went to the North and never returned. The North conitnued racking up debts on the South, and then tried to outlaw their only means of mass production without providing any solution for their fellow nation.

The states seceded legally, and the North got pissed and invaded...it's a simple as that. You cannot use a ruling in 1869 to unjustify secession in 1861, especially since the ruling was a joke and in no way justifies the laws in the Constitution.

Read Amendment 10, and then try to find somewhere in the Constitution of that forbade secession.

 

[The_Hammer]

First, I hate to spill the beans on our election system, but popular representation means nothing. If that was the case, Al Gore would have been the president. They were oppressed since the majority of the money in the nation went to the North and never returned. The North continued racking up debts on the South, and then tried to outlaw their only means of mass production without providing any solution for their fellow nation.

Brzzzt! Wrong answer. Popular representation is the basis of our house and most states have popular votes. Gore lost because of the law (supreme court decision). Popular vote does matter for electoral representation. There isn't oppression in following the rules. The money goes where the people are. The north had more people, ergo, they get more money. That's how it works. Slavery wasn't the only means of mass production. Many plantations were profitable and had white labor. It wasn't necessary, just convenient.. Slavery was part of the souths hierarchical system. If you read some of the dissolution clauses they make the argument that the slavery of the African to the white was "natural".

The states seceded legally, and the North got pissed and invaded...it's a simple as that. You cannot use a ruling in 1869 to unjustify secession in 1861, especially since the ruling was a joke and in no way justifies the laws in the Constitution.

Wow you're retarded. I never mentioned the '69 ruiling. Way to put words in my mouth, again. I used the constitution.

Read Amendment 10, and then try to find somewhere in the Constitution of that forbade secession.

Don't need to. The constitution forbade states breaking oaths (contracts) and set itself up as the supreme law of the land. Things that sovereign nations could do states weren't allowed to do, only the fed could or if the fed gave the states permission. Ergo Fed > States. Actually read my posts please and you might not have some many problems understanding what I'm ACTUALLY saying.

You stated that well young one. You mentioned a little about slavery, and then followed it up with the main reason why the South seceded...they north did not respect them, they did not enforce laws in the South, etc...there were many other reasons why the South seceded, it was not strictly over slavery. Slavery was a factor that was tied into the whole mess. If the North was trying to outlaw Cowboy hats, there would have been a similar response.

Right. Slavery was the main reason, the pillar, the load bearing wall, upon which their secession was based. It's removed, they have nothing to bitch about. Representation in congress? Because they can't counter the Norths attempts to eliminate slavery. Debts to the north? Because they chose to remain agrarian and use slavery and didn't modernize. Not respecting their laws? Their laws to keep slaves, the basis of their crappy economy.

If they had been so worried about the enforcement of their own laws they would have taken it to the supreme court and gotten the court to force the fed to force the states to respect the south. Thus far, I haven't seen that.

 

[manifold]

The North had absolutely no legal right to invade and conquer the South. So apologists for the North justify it on moral grounds. Slavery is bad, therefore raping, plundering, pillaging and otherwise razing the South to the ground was morally justified. However, the right to secede from the union, which was allegedly retained by each individual state, was in no way predicated on having a good, moral reason to do so. In the end, both the North and South could be considered both good guys and bad guys for different reasons. But the fact remains that the South was LEGALLY justifed, the North was not.

 

[Ravi]

The North had absolutely no legal right to invade and conquer the South. So apologists for the North justify it on moral grounds. Slavery is bad, therefore raping, plundering, pillaging and otherwise razing the South to the ground was morally justified. However, the right to secede from the union, which was allegedly retained by each individual state, was in no way predicated on having a good, moral reason to do so. In the end, both the North and South could be considered both good guys and bad guys for different reasons. But the fact remains that the South was LEGALLY justifed, the North was not.

Are you saying that the USA has no legal standing to invade another country?

 

[BrianH]

Brzzzt! Wrong answer. Popular representation is the basis of our house and most states have popular votes. Gore lost because of the law (supreme court decision). Popular vote does matter for electoral representation. There isn't oppression in following the rules. The money goes where the people are. The north had more people, ergo, they get more money. That's how it works. Slavery wasn't the only means of mass production. Many plantations were profitable and had white labor. It wasn't necessary, just convenient.. Slavery was part of the souths hierarchical system. If you read some of the dissolution clauses they make the argument that the slavery of the African to the white was "natural".



Wow you're retarded. I never mentioned the '69 ruiling. Way to put words in my mouth, again. I used the constitution.




Don't need to. The constitution forbade states breaking oaths (contracts) and set itself up as the supreme law of the land. Things that sovereign nations could do states weren't allowed to do, only the fed could or if the fed gave the states permission. Ergo Fed > States. Actually read my posts please and you might not have some many problems understanding what I'm ACTUALLY saying.



Right. Slavery was the main reason, the pillar, the load bearing wall, upon which their secession was based. It's removed, they have nothing to bitch about. Representation in congress? Because they can't counter the Norths attempts to eliminate slavery. Debts to the north? Because they chose to remain agrarian and use slavery and didn't modernize. Not respecting their laws? Their laws to keep slaves, the basis of their crappy economy.

If they had been so worried about the enforcement of their own laws they would have taken it to the supreme court and gotten the court to force the fed to force the states to respect the south. Thus far, I haven't seen that.

You seem to be doing what GW scientist do. Cherry-picking information to come up with a desired result. Which is what debate team is all about. You want to prove your position. The only thing you haven't done is look at the situation objectively. You're coming from a biased point of view...which isn't a good crutch as far as debate goes.

I hate to tell you, but our election system is not all that you crack it up to be. The idea is there to be fair, but it's not that way in practice. Sorry...

As far as slaves go, slave owners were in the minority in the South; large slave owners being the extreme minority.

I hate to break it to you Hammer, but you're misguided by our Constitution.

Like I said, find where the COnstitution states that secession is illegal...and we can end this debate. I'm glad the North won and that slavery is illegal. But from a historical POV, the South seceded legally. Amendment 10.....Amendment 10....it's in the Bill of "RIGHTS"

 

[manifold]

Are you saying that the USA has no legal standing to invade another country?

No. I'm talking about one specific case, The Civil War.

 

[Ravi]

No. I'm talking about one specific case, The Civil War.

Since the south was no longer part of the union, the union had legal standing to invade and conquer it.

 

[manifold]

Since the south was no longer part of the union, the union had legal standing to invade and conquer it.

Okie dokie.

I guess you must also be on board with invading Iran then.

 

[Ravi]

Okie dokie.

I guess you must also be on board with invading Iran then.

Nope. Are you having non sequitur problems?

 

[manifold]

Nope. Are you having non sequitur problems?

No problem at all. Merely responding to one with one of my own.

If I didn't know you better, I'd rightfully conclude that you believe that invading and conquering another country is always legal and justified so long as you have the power to do so. The might makes right philosophy if you will. Luckily for you, I do know you better.

Now, if you care to explain, I'd like to understand why you believe the North had a legal right to destroy the South in the name of preserving the union.

 

[ReillyT]

Okie dokie.

I guess you must also be on board with invading Iran then.

If the secession was not a lawful act (and it wasn't), then the United States just put down a rebellion in a province. It has the same legitimacy as Spain suppressing the ETA in the Basque region. Iran would be a poor comparison.

 

[Ravi]

No problem at all. Merely responding to one with one of my own.

If I didn't know you better, I'd rightfully conclude that you believe that invading and conquering another country is always legal and justified so long as you have the power to do so. The might makes right philosophy if you will. Luckily for you, I do know you better.

Now, if you care to explain, I'd like to understand why you believe the North had a legal right to destroy the South in the name of preserving the union.

I didn't say it was justified (though in the case of the Civil War I think it was). Just legal. As far as I know, Congress has the option to declare war on whomever it pleases. Am I incorrect?

 

[manifold]

If the secession was not a lawful act (and it wasn't), then the United States just put down a rebellion in a province.

I disagree with your conclusion concerning the legality of the secession. I understand and acknowledge that the matter was not specifically addressed by the Founding Fathers, which opens the door to the conflicting opinions we see voiced on the matter still today. My position is that if it was not specifically made unlawful, then it was lawful by default.

 

[manifold]

I didn't say it was justified (though in the case of the Civil War I think it was). Just legal. As far as I know, Congress has the option to declare war on whomever it pleases. Am I incorrect?

hmmmm, so you do subscribe to the might makes right philosophy.

I stand corrected.

 

[Ravi]

hmmmm, so you do subscribe to the might makes right philosophy.

I stand corrected.

No, you are still wrong. Show me how it was illegal.

 

[manifold]

I think Reilly brings up a good distinction that I can use to more accurately convey my position. Arguing over "legality" of the invasion is in many ways missing the point. I argue that the Civil War WAS NOT merely putting down a rebellion. The Civil War was an invasion, conquering and annexation of a foreign, sovereign land. And the North's invasion was not borne out of a noble cause to free slaves, it was all about money and preserving the union.

 

[Ravi]

I think Reilly brings up a good distinction that I can use to more accurately convey my position. Arguing over "legality" of the invasion is in many ways missing the point. I argue that the Civil War WAS NOT merely putting down a rebellion. The Civil War was an invasion, conquering and annexation of a foreign, sovereign land. And the North's invasion was not borne out of a noble cause to free slaves, it was all about money and preserving the union.

That's all fine and dandy, but we were discussing the legality of it. I still haven't seen anything suggested that makes me question its legality.

 

[manifold]

That's all fine and dandy, but we were discussing the legality of it. I still haven't seen anything suggested that makes me question its legality.

I concede. In the case of invading a foreign, sovereign land, there usually does not exist any binding laws governing said action. I'm pretty sure Hitler didn't violate any German laws when he invaded Poland and France either (apologies for tangentially invoking Godwins law).

As Reilly accurately pointed out, the real question of legality has to do with the secession itself. I say it was legal. What say you?